Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing reasonable cause due to medical exigencies and the assessee's illiteracy. The assessment and penalty orders were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing reasonable cause due to medical exigencies and the assessee's illiteracy. The assessment and penalty orders were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to reopen the assessment u/s 150(1) was valid, and the AO's action was permissible. It deleted the addition of Rs. 14,08,400 for unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing confirmations and bank details which the Revenue failed to controvert. However, it upheld the disallowance of Rs. 1,16,417 for commission income due to the assessee's failure to reconcile the discrepancy.
The Tribunal held that the issue of the bank guarantee required verification at the Assessing Officer's level due to insufficient material for a decision on merits. Similarly, the disallowance under section 40A(3) lacked clarity regarding cash payments for electricity expenses.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard by both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee furnished additional evidence under Rule 29, including an affidavit and supporting documents, indicating that loans were received from her husband's colleagues through banking channels. Finding this evidence crucial and necessary for natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh assessment and verification of the new evidence after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the unrectified defects and the assessee's non-appearance. However, it clarified that the assessee is at liberty to approach the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for restoration of the appeal after rectifying the aforesaid defects.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,93,48,000/- as unexplained income, finding that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of transactions and relied on the doctrine of human probability. The disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) was also upheld as the amount allowed was considered reasonable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the notice under section 142(1) was issued on 09.03.2018, beyond the prescribed date of 31.12.2017 as per CBDT Circular. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings as void ab initio due to the delayed notice, thus not adjudicating the case on merits.
The Tribunal condoned a 38-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It admitted additional evidence, including an affidavit and excise challans, to explain the source of cash deposits. The case was restored to the AO to allow the assessee another opportunity to present his case and verify the additional evidence, with a caution for the assessee to fully comply.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the AO was null and void as the limited scrutiny was converted to complete scrutiny and additions were made beyond the original scope without the requisite approval as mandated by CBDT Instruction No. 20/2015. Since no such approval was on record, the assessment order was deemed bad in law and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2) after the issuance of a notice under section 148 is a mandatory defect, not a procedural one, rendering the entire assessment liable to be annulled. Relying on jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal annulled the assessment order passed by the AO under section 144 read with 147 of the Act.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing a fresh order to be passed after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and ensuring a speaking order on merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that limited funds were primarily utilized for the construction of Satsang Bhawan, which aligns with its charitable objective, and that charitable activities have now commenced. Concluding that the construction was complete and activities were ongoing, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (Exemptions)'s orders and directed the acceptance of the assessee's applications under sections 12AB and 80G of the Act.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that limited funds were primarily utilized for the construction of Satsang Bhawan, which aligns with its charitable objective, and that charitable activities have now commenced. Concluding that the construction was complete and activities were ongoing, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (Exemptions)'s orders and directed the acceptance of the assessee's applications under sections 12AB and 80G of the Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals. The Tribunal noted that despite multiple hearing dates, no representation was made on behalf of the assessee, and no material was presented to justify any interference with the CIT(A)'s orders. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals. The Tribunal noted that despite multiple hearing dates, no representation was made on behalf of the assessee, and no material was presented to justify any interference with the CIT(A)'s orders. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals. The Tribunal noted that despite multiple hearing dates, no representation was made on behalf of the assessee, and no material was presented to justify any interference with the CIT(A)'s orders. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order on merits and violated the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a *de novo* appellate order in accordance with law, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The ITAT found that the assessee had adduced reasonable grounds for the delay, noting that the pursuit of a remedy under Section 154 indicated no negligence or mala fide intention. The Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter, directing the CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of share transactions and the delivery of shares. The handwritten distinctive numbers on contract notes lacked authentication, and the delayed transfer of funds was uncommon in share trading.